DynamiteCop

3 minutes ago, -GD- said:

1080p

 

i will be playing the 4k/30 fps mode anyhow. 

I will as well but it really depends on what they're able to get out of the 60 mode. If it's 1440p+ I think I'd go that route even though the 30 experience is still smooth with their really good motion blur implementation.

Would you mind cleaning this thread up, those posts above are just retarded. 

I'm not sure how this works out as an insult by acknowledging a hardware capability the Xbox has which the PlayStation does not, but please continue.

4 minutes ago, Ramza said:

I bet that no one cares.

Four people who don't play these games that don't care, shocking.

edit: 5 people

The sheep are unhinged, what kind of dumbass posts are these?

15 minutes ago, bhytre said:

Lemwarriors need their protein  The best available controller just got even better 

Nyko had a controller for PC in the early 2000's with tiny fans in it that kept your hands cool. If Microsoft could pull this off with minimal battery drain I would spend $100 on that.

6 minutes ago, McWickedSmawt85 said:

Nobody gives a shit.

How about you fuck off.

We all know this mode is going to be a locked 60 FPS as PG/Turn 10 always churn out a locked framerate,  so how do you think Playground is going to handle the resolution side of things to attain this?

• 1080p
• 1440p
• 1800p
• Some obscure numbered resolution
• Dynamic scaling
• Advanced rendering (sparse rendering/checkerboard etc.)

I'm going with an aggressive dynamic scaler which has a low of around 1440p and a high around 1800p. To maintain a locked 30 FPS at native 4K they've clearly got a performance surplus which mitigates any drops below that threshold so the game is likely averaging in the low 40's. With that said factoring in dynamic scaling they should be able to maintain that threshold for a 60 FPS lock in the low 70's bumping down the resolution when needed in that that 1440p to 1800p range depending on what is going on. I don't see these guys messing around with any kind of checkerboard rendering, they seem to be very much about native renders so it will be interesting to see where this falls. I assume there's no resolution information as of yet because they're currently tuning this for peak operation and don't have a final number yet.

You can't even buy this, it's a promotional item that's being given away...

3 minutes ago, Goukosan said:

and what titleS are lighting up the charts on Xbox1? 

 

Xbox1 is starved... actually in a famine for AAA exclusive content.   So that should mean Indies and 3rd party AAAs are selling gang Busters on Xbox1.... Amirite? 

 

 

I'd say there's a pretty equal dispersion of spending on Xbox, no facet of its game market excels well beyond the next except in rare instances where something like Halo comes along. All games seem to do fairly well whether it be Xbox exclusives, AAA multiplatforms or indie titles. Switch sales are incredibly lopsided because there's an entire segment of the game market missing from the platform. There's no AAA multiplatform market on the Switch, that money and spending that would be dedicated to that has to go somewhere.

Just now, Goukosan said:

Yes Sea of Thieves did ok. 

 

What other titles lit up the chart on Xbox1 this year?  If that logic holds through Xbox1 software should be topping the charts regularly because they're in a famine. 

 

Every single title on Switch that does well, the excuse is "because they're starving" 

 

Hollow Knight - They're starving 

Mario Tennis - They're starving 

Octopath - They're starving. 

Dead Cells - They're starving. 

*insert title here" - they're starving. 

 

lol

Aren't you noticing this trend though? It's exceptionally good indie type games that are selling this well or Nintendo games. There's almost no AAA multiplatforms on the platform to offset these sales so this money that would typically be spent on them is diverted to atypical products in a substantial way.

If Switch got everything that Xbox One and PlayStation 4 got in a AAA capacity the indie and lesser game sales wouldn't be as substantial as they are or substantial period.

1 hour ago, Goukosan said:

Bodycount delivering the reality check to the delusional bros of Slow Johnny and DynamiteKKKop 

His reality isn't shared. 

Living rent free in your heads 24/7

Xbox hasn't fucked us, it's fucked up your brains.

I still need to get moss, it needs to go on sale though. I don't want to spend $30 on it, maybe $15.

4 minutes ago, TLHBO said:

A 9 for a racing game is like a 6 when compared to a real game

Actually a 9 for a racing game would be like an 11 for a "real" game, it's harder for racing games to attain these higher scores. 

15 minutes ago, Quad Damage said:

jon theres a reason vegas doesnt accept superbowl bets at halftime

So what you're saying is that his bet is a sure thing and it would be stupid to accept it? Is that what you're saying?

1 minute ago, Jon2B said:

Even worse lmfao 

He lives in a paradise and comes on this forum, every day he visits these forums is like a burned up holiday on the internet 

4 minutes ago, madmaltese said:

Congratulations, you have ascended. You may always be wrong but at least you were the only lemming that doesn't post like a 12 year old. They have done a number on you. 

When in Rome. 

4 minutes ago, Jon2B said:

lmfao, youre WEAK

You cucks only use GS when it benefits you

MC or bust, or STFU

It will best spodertransman on both

Just now, Remij_ said:

Gamespot 9/10

IGN 9.2

Meta 91

 

If it got 10/10 at GS I'd be floored.. I hope I'm wrong  

From what I've seen they pulled out all the stops for this game, it looks bigger and better in every way so it's possible. A 10/10 for a racer is unheard of but this game could actually pull it off. 

5 minutes ago, Quad Damage said:

One x was a mistake

Let's see what you've got ladies, if there was one racing game to get a 10/10 it would be this one. Everything about it looks to have been stepped up, graphics, environments and interaction, weather system, seasons being added, fully persistent online world, 60 FPS option on the X etc. 

GS: 10/10

IGN: 9.2/10

Meta: 93/100

7 minutes ago, Jon2B said:

I thought we didnt use DF because they "lied" about FC5 ?

1 minute ago, -GD- said:

The game was running at 1440p during e3. So just stop embrassing yourself. 

>the game was running at 1440p

>stop embarrassing yourself

>1440p

2 minutes ago, Remij_ said:

The flat out say the lighting and shadows look better.. and while the puddle scene composition looks better in the 2017 demo, the puddle wasn't removed for any technical reason but rather likely an artistic reason due to the amount of time it would take to do that for every scene... so instead they fall back on screen space reflections and less accurate cube maps so that reflections are consistent throughout.

 

That's hardly saying what you guys were in the other thread that it was "downgraded" implying that the hardware wasn't capable...

The game is dropping down to 1584p and 900p with temporal injection, it's already operating at substandard resolutions even with advanced rendering reprocessing the image. I'd say it's pretty safe to assume changes made were because of hardware demands.